Just when all peace plans have failed to stop the ongoing violence, Israel had no choice but to devise its own protection measure: a security fence. Whether it will work is yet to be seen. Israel seems to have awakened from the "conciliatory" position and has taken actions to stop the bloodshed that neither the US, the United Nations, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority, or any Arab country has been able to do. Whether Israel is taking a defiant attitude or adopting a courageous stance in building the fence after the UN General Assembly voted against the barrier, it reveals four issues: the UN?s inability to solve the conflict; US power by vetoing the resolution, but not influencing international opinion; the influence of the Arab-Palestinians in the UN; and Israel?s inability to present its case while remaining isolated from the world.
The question is whether Israel needs UN permission to defend itself from the continuous terrorist attacks, mostly in the forms of homicide bombings, coming from the disputed lands of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Should Israel isolate the zone of Judea and Samaria, or stop the construction of the fence and be vulnerable for further attacks?
Israel claims the fence is to stop homicide bombings coming from Judea and Samaria, while Arab-Palestinians claim that it will mark a de facto border for the future state. The UN General Assembly apparently took an unbiased position when it passed the resolution demanding Israel to dismantle parts of the barrier, while simultaneously condemning Palestinian suicide bombings.
The problem is that the resolution only condemns the Palestinian suicide bombings, without specifically offering effective measures for the eradication of the main terrorist groups claiming responsibility for these unspeakable acts, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Actions are needed to stop the bloodshed, not mere diplomatic rhetoric.
The UN could have first demanded the dismantling and immediate eradication of terrorist infrastructures and also of the Palestinian Authority. Why the PA? Because, as per Israeli intelligence, there is evidence that Yasser Arafat himself is involved with terrorist activities, including the use of his own military groups. For instance, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade is an offshoot of Arafat?s al-Fatah, and it has claimed responsibility for many homicide bombings. In other words, why did the UN not pass a resolution condemning Arafat?
Nonetheless, Israel is not bound by the UN General Assembly resolution, because, contrary to the Security Council resolutions, the votes in the Assembly carry more of a symbolic value. This is why Arab-Palestinians attempted to get an Arab-backed Security Council resolution, backed by Syria (a state sponsoring terrorism and ironically also a member of the Security Council), but failed to do so when the US blocked it with a veto on October 14, 2003.
As mentioned by US Ambassador John Negroponte, the resolution did not make sense because "it didn't condemn the terrorist acts that have occurred recently and it didn't make any mention of the terrorist issue, the terrorist infrastructure, the attacks by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa [Martyrs] Brigade."
On the other hand, the UN General Assembly resolution submitted by the European Union - passed on October 21 by 144 votes, with only 4 votes opposing, while 12 countries abstained - shows Israel?s diplomatic isolation. Only the US, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Israel voted against. The fact is that, when it comes to serious decisions, Israel is practically standing alone. The advantage for the Israeli government in pursuing the construction of the fence is that it counts on the support of most Israelis, who are tired of seeing their people being killed by homicide bombings.
Furthermore, the aforementioned resolution called on Israel to "stop and reverse" the construction of the barrier based on the claim that its construction contradicts international law, because it is constructed on Palestinian land, including around eastern Jerusalem. However, this is not so. According to Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it says that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Let?s clarify for the record that what is known as the West Bank are actually Judea and Samaria. Israel militarily won these lands when it defended against the Arabs during the 1967 Six-Day War. Therefore, "international law" does not apply here, because the lands are simply not occupied. Period.
Then again, one can argue that what is really against "international law" is allowing ongoing terrorism aimed at destroying Israel since its foundation on May 14, 1948. Ironically, it was the same UN that allowed the partition in 1947, with UN Resolution 181. The resolution offered a Jewish State and an Arab State. However, the Arabs did not accept it.
Again, there has never been a Palestinian people, a Palestinian state, nor a Palestinian language. The term ?Palestine? comes from the 2nd Century, when the Romans wanted to erase the Jewish identity of the land. Then, the "Palestinian Authority" came to existence as a result of the Oslo Agreement in 1993, when terrorist Yasser Arafat, then leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, became a diplomatic figure as its Chairman. According to Victims of Arab Terror International, since 1993, over 1,400 Jews have been killed by terrorist acts, mostly stemming from Judea and Samaria, while thousands have also been severely injured.
Unquestionably, all past so-called peace plans failed to stop terrorism, while showing that the more Israel has made concessions, the more it has suffered terrorists attacks. Let us consider that before 1990, the UN General Assembly approved 690 resolutions and 429 were to condemn Israel, while practically condoning the Arab-Palestinian terrorists. Does this make sense? I highlight the word terrorists, because they are the ones responsible for the unending bloodshed, not the truly innocent Arab-Palestinian citizens.
Has the UN been able to solve the crisis? No. Has the UN asked for the immediate eradication of terrorist infrastructures in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip? No. It appears that the UN is obsessed with opposing Israel, the only democratic state in the area, in her defense of her right to exist. The most important fact is that Israel is not even considered a full member of any UN bloc.
The fact is that with years passing by, the UN has become an ineffective organism and maybe just a relic, a collectible. Therefore, the only way the UN can show its relevance is by demanding the immediate dismantling of terrorist infrastructures, which includes the Palestinian Authority, not by passing resolutions forcing Israel (or any other country) to make more concessions while terrorism is being used as a political policy. Let us remember that Israel is constructing the barrier in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists who operate freely under the PA.
Answering the question of whether Israel needs permission from the UN to defend herself, the answer could come from the thousands of innocent civilians who can no longer express their joy for life after being silenced by homicide bombings. Permission cannot come from outside, but from inside. The Israeli government, so far, counts on the support of the majority of its citizens. Based on the UN?s biased record, Israel does not need their permission to defend its citizens.
Therefore, after living under the grip of terrorism, one can argue that Israel is taking a courageous step to continue with the construction of the fence to protect its citizens and its right to exist. However, Israel is also taking a defiant attitude towards terrorism. Presently, of the estimated 217 miles of fence, at a cost of $200 million, 93 miles have been constructed in the north.
I will leave you, the reader, with the question: Should Israel isolate the zone of Judea and Samaria, or stop the construction of the fence and be vulnerable to further attacks?
The question is whether Israel needs UN permission to defend itself from the continuous terrorist attacks, mostly in the forms of homicide bombings, coming from the disputed lands of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). Should Israel isolate the zone of Judea and Samaria, or stop the construction of the fence and be vulnerable for further attacks?
Israel claims the fence is to stop homicide bombings coming from Judea and Samaria, while Arab-Palestinians claim that it will mark a de facto border for the future state. The UN General Assembly apparently took an unbiased position when it passed the resolution demanding Israel to dismantle parts of the barrier, while simultaneously condemning Palestinian suicide bombings.
The problem is that the resolution only condemns the Palestinian suicide bombings, without specifically offering effective measures for the eradication of the main terrorist groups claiming responsibility for these unspeakable acts, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Actions are needed to stop the bloodshed, not mere diplomatic rhetoric.
The UN could have first demanded the dismantling and immediate eradication of terrorist infrastructures and also of the Palestinian Authority. Why the PA? Because, as per Israeli intelligence, there is evidence that Yasser Arafat himself is involved with terrorist activities, including the use of his own military groups. For instance, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade is an offshoot of Arafat?s al-Fatah, and it has claimed responsibility for many homicide bombings. In other words, why did the UN not pass a resolution condemning Arafat?
Nonetheless, Israel is not bound by the UN General Assembly resolution, because, contrary to the Security Council resolutions, the votes in the Assembly carry more of a symbolic value. This is why Arab-Palestinians attempted to get an Arab-backed Security Council resolution, backed by Syria (a state sponsoring terrorism and ironically also a member of the Security Council), but failed to do so when the US blocked it with a veto on October 14, 2003.
As mentioned by US Ambassador John Negroponte, the resolution did not make sense because "it didn't condemn the terrorist acts that have occurred recently and it didn't make any mention of the terrorist issue, the terrorist infrastructure, the attacks by Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa [Martyrs] Brigade."
On the other hand, the UN General Assembly resolution submitted by the European Union - passed on October 21 by 144 votes, with only 4 votes opposing, while 12 countries abstained - shows Israel?s diplomatic isolation. Only the US, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Israel voted against. The fact is that, when it comes to serious decisions, Israel is practically standing alone. The advantage for the Israeli government in pursuing the construction of the fence is that it counts on the support of most Israelis, who are tired of seeing their people being killed by homicide bombings.
Furthermore, the aforementioned resolution called on Israel to "stop and reverse" the construction of the barrier based on the claim that its construction contradicts international law, because it is constructed on Palestinian land, including around eastern Jerusalem. However, this is not so. According to Article 49, paragraph 6 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it says that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Let?s clarify for the record that what is known as the West Bank are actually Judea and Samaria. Israel militarily won these lands when it defended against the Arabs during the 1967 Six-Day War. Therefore, "international law" does not apply here, because the lands are simply not occupied. Period.
Then again, one can argue that what is really against "international law" is allowing ongoing terrorism aimed at destroying Israel since its foundation on May 14, 1948. Ironically, it was the same UN that allowed the partition in 1947, with UN Resolution 181. The resolution offered a Jewish State and an Arab State. However, the Arabs did not accept it.
Again, there has never been a Palestinian people, a Palestinian state, nor a Palestinian language. The term ?Palestine? comes from the 2nd Century, when the Romans wanted to erase the Jewish identity of the land. Then, the "Palestinian Authority" came to existence as a result of the Oslo Agreement in 1993, when terrorist Yasser Arafat, then leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, became a diplomatic figure as its Chairman. According to Victims of Arab Terror International, since 1993, over 1,400 Jews have been killed by terrorist acts, mostly stemming from Judea and Samaria, while thousands have also been severely injured.
Unquestionably, all past so-called peace plans failed to stop terrorism, while showing that the more Israel has made concessions, the more it has suffered terrorists attacks. Let us consider that before 1990, the UN General Assembly approved 690 resolutions and 429 were to condemn Israel, while practically condoning the Arab-Palestinian terrorists. Does this make sense? I highlight the word terrorists, because they are the ones responsible for the unending bloodshed, not the truly innocent Arab-Palestinian citizens.
Has the UN been able to solve the crisis? No. Has the UN asked for the immediate eradication of terrorist infrastructures in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip? No. It appears that the UN is obsessed with opposing Israel, the only democratic state in the area, in her defense of her right to exist. The most important fact is that Israel is not even considered a full member of any UN bloc.
The fact is that with years passing by, the UN has become an ineffective organism and maybe just a relic, a collectible. Therefore, the only way the UN can show its relevance is by demanding the immediate dismantling of terrorist infrastructures, which includes the Palestinian Authority, not by passing resolutions forcing Israel (or any other country) to make more concessions while terrorism is being used as a political policy. Let us remember that Israel is constructing the barrier in order to prevent the infiltration of terrorists who operate freely under the PA.
Answering the question of whether Israel needs permission from the UN to defend herself, the answer could come from the thousands of innocent civilians who can no longer express their joy for life after being silenced by homicide bombings. Permission cannot come from outside, but from inside. The Israeli government, so far, counts on the support of the majority of its citizens. Based on the UN?s biased record, Israel does not need their permission to defend its citizens.
Therefore, after living under the grip of terrorism, one can argue that Israel is taking a courageous step to continue with the construction of the fence to protect its citizens and its right to exist. However, Israel is also taking a defiant attitude towards terrorism. Presently, of the estimated 217 miles of fence, at a cost of $200 million, 93 miles have been constructed in the north.
I will leave you, the reader, with the question: Should Israel isolate the zone of Judea and Samaria, or stop the construction of the fence and be vulnerable to further attacks?